Disposed

Mahendra Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018A482/21570/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. noting factual disputes. However, the Court granted relief if applicants surrender within 30 days, directing that their bail application be considered based on specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application quashed—but applicants granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration.

Mahendra Pal and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21570 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra Pal And Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- R.B. Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant today, which is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 13.11.2017, cognizance order dated 15.12.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 8938 of 2018 (State Vs. Suresh Chandra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2017, under Sections2/3 Public Property Damages Act, Police Station- Mirhachi, District- Etah, pending in the court of C.J.M., Etah.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been pre-maturely lodged against the applicants. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that the said FIR has been lodged in pursuance of the direction issued by the S.D.M. after having passed orders for removal of encroachment made by the applicant. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶7

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶8

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶9

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Abhilash

Mahendra Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munawwar Shah and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anshudhar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.